Romania The Society and Its Environment
Typical Romanians
ROMANIAN SOCIETY at the close of the 1980s was the
product of
more than forty years of communist rule that had two
primary
objectives--the industrialization of the economy at all
costs and
the establishment of
socialism (see Glossary).
Both of these
objectives forced far-reaching changes in popular values,
changes
wrought by a highly centralized government that
concentrated power
in the hands of a very small political elite. This ruling
elite
brooked no opposition to its program for economic
development and
the simultaneous destruction of national values and
institutions in
favor of those dictated by Marxist ideology. Socialism's
tighter
political control made for more effective mobilization of
the
country's resources and, at the same time, initiated
massive social
mobility. Education, as the chief vehicle of upward
mobility, was
made widely available, and rapid economic growth created a
tremendous expansion of opportunities. The result was a
new social
order that gave preeminence to the working class and to
manual
labor over nonmanual.
To be sure, the monopoly of power by an elite few was
in large
part responsible for the swift modernization that took
place in the
first decades under socialism. But such political
centralism was
accompanied by cultural centralism that severely curtailed
the
liberties of individuals and social groups. This
restriction became
particularly evident under the cult of personality that
developed
around Nicolae Ceausescu, who dominated politics after the
late
1960s. Later years under Ceausescu marked Romanian society
with a
Stalinesque oppression that meant government regulation of
the most
minute aspects of daily life and growing police
repression. In
addition, largely because economic reality had been
subordinated to
Ceausescu's personal political goals, the promising degree
of
modernization achieved in the early years of socialism
gave way to
an almost bizarre process of demodernization that
impoverished the
nation. This process was accompanied by increased terror
and
repression, resulting in an atomized society in which
people
struggled to survive by turning inward to themselves and
their
families.
The regime's program of enforced austerity and
resulting
demodernization flew in the face of the greater equality
and
material wealth promised by socialism. Egalitarian values
had
indeed gained widespread popular acceptance. But even if
claims of
equal distribution of material benefits were true, they
fell flat
in light of the fact that there was very little to
distribute.
Moreover, evidence of unequal distribution abounded, as
the
political elite took greater rewards and were least
affected by the
deprivation their policies caused. Corruption was rampant,
and only
those who "knew someone" and had the wherewithal to bribe
the
appropriate person could obtain even the most basic goods
and
services. Claims of equalization of status also were
suspect.
Social ranking, as developed in the minds of individual
citizens as
opposed to the hierarchy proclaimed and directed by the
regime,
decidedly preferred nonmanual labor over manual and urban
over
rural occupations. In the late 1980s, the massive upward
mobility
experienced earlier appeared unlikely to be repeated, and
society
showed signs of a hardening stratification. Egalitarian
values
inculcated under socialist rule had created aspirations
that the
regime failed to meet, and discontent at every level of
society was
evidence of the growing frustration associated with that
failure.
Data as of July 1989
|